Stone v. Baltimore Washington Hotel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “knowledge of the failure to pay [wages] alone is sufficient to put a successor on notice of potential liability” of an FLSA claim
• recognizing that, where a plaintiff cannot allege “notice of actual pending lawsuits,” he may allege “notice of potential liability” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that in the case of a complete failure to pay wages, successor’s prior knowledge of the failure to pay wages alone was sufficient to put that successor on notice of potential liability
• noting that the plaintiffs “ha[d] the burden to show that [the defendant] had notice of [the plaintiffs] claim prior to the acquisition”
• noting that the substantial continuity doctrine applies in the context of assets, and that in a sale of stock, the acquirer “acquires the assets and liabilities of the seller”
• noting that courts have “consistently held that the equitable considerations behind successor liability may make it inappropriate” to impose successor liability on an innocent purchaser when the predecessor is able to provide relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).